As far as I'm concerned, all these people should -at the very least- lose their jobs. This list went way beyond political advocacy, and truly may have thrown the election for Obama through their combined and intentionally biased media barrage.... at hundreds, literally hundreds, of prestigious (and not-so-prestigious) outlets.

Tell you what I really think? These people treacherously undermined our democratic process, and it's hard for me to believe it was legal.

If there's a lawyer in the house, I'm curious: Doesn't this conspiracy in many cases constitute "honest services fraud"? And as such, couldn't some of these individuals conceivably be prosecuted under the "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act" (RICO)?

I try never to blog on Shabbes, but when it seems any spark could set off another World War and there are attacks going on, I get anxious. It's no excuse, I know. So, hoping that you don't have occasion to read this until after nightfall, here's the latest.

After Misc. Arabs in Jew-free Gaza fired a Grad rocket into the city of Ashkelon on Friday, Israel retaliated on Shabbes. Thankfully, the IDF was able to take out a HAMAS "senior commander." Kol Hakavod L' Tzahal.

P.S. The New York Times account is mediocre in terms of bias, until you get to this prize-winning bilge in the last paragraph:

... Israel maintains a system of warning shots, then a shoot-to-kill policy for Palestinians who approach the Gaza-Israel border. The policy was initially created to scare off militants firing rockets close to the sensitive area, but it also endangers impoverished Gazans who frequently haul donkey carts close to the border to gather pebbles, which they later sell to builders to make cement, and to collect scrap metal to recycle.

Friday, 30 July 2010

At a briefing today to discuss the administration’s efforts to rescue the auto industry, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs took on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh—and every other critic “sitting in the cheap seats” –for criticizing the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler as a “government takeover” that smacks of socialism.

Told by a reporter that “You had Rush Limbaugh today — today or yesterday — talking Obama Motors again,” Gibbs, who doesn’t often provide free advertising by taking on his critics by name from the podium, let fire.

“Look, Rush Limbaugh and others wanted to walk away. Rush Limbaugh and others saw a million people that worked at these factories, that worked at these parts suppliers, that had — that supported communities, and thought we should all just walk away. The president didn’t think that walking away from a million jobs in these communities made a lot of economic sense,” Gibbs said.

He was just getting up to speed.

“We’ve got auto companies that for the first time since 2004 all showed an operating profit in the first quarter of this year. It’s adding jobs. And the money that this administration invested — about $60 billion — we believe we’re on the path to recouping all of that. That’s a significant story.

“I’ll let those that sat in the cheap seats a year-and-a-half ago and wanted to walk away” from a milion workers, he continued, “explain to every one of those workers why they made that decision.”

Finally, he wrapped it up: “And then you should ask Mr. Limbaugh — I don’t know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it’s not an F-150.”

The F-150 truck, we should note, is made by Ford, which didn’t get federal rescue funds.

At least we can all rest assured that The Won doesn't sit in a "cheap seat." What did Team Obama pay to sit in the Oval Office?Three quarters of a million?

(What's amazing is that they still had a "stash" of$8,957,536 cash on hand when all was said and done -- or am I reading this wrong?)

That just about says it all. Have "peace talks," concede your defenses, and let your ostensible peace partners fire rockets into your cities and towns. It makes total sense... unless of course you live in Israel and it's you and your kids they're trying to kill.

The Husband was enormously pleased this morning to see Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen call out President Obama for his "divisive approach to governance" that has "weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."

My reaction, on the other hand, was one of fury. Where have they been? If they can see it now, why now? Why not sooner? Why not before the "Super Delegates" of the Democrat Party annointed him The Won?

I don't often write letters to editors anymore, as I have enough problems trying to store the ones I have submitted to no avail already, but I gave it a quick shot just in case:

I suppose I should be grateful that stalwart liberals such as Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, both of whom I respect, have finally seen the light -- or more precisely, the darkness of impending doom. When I read "Our Divisive President," I was however more angry than appreciative. Where were Caddell and Schoen when - more than half a year before the presidential election - Obama spoke of his "typical White" grandmother? If that wasn't blatant and offensive racial divisiveness, I don't know what you would call it.

If Caddell and Schoen were not personally offended by that remark, at that time, they need to figure out the reason(s). We cannot begin to treat racial and other forms of divisiveness until we understand the obstacles automatically brought to bear that prevent us from recognizing it in the first place.

EoZ reports: An Iranian delegation is expected to arrive in Gaza in the next few days....

[However] ... Al Arabiya quotes Iran's PressTV that a political delegation from Iran is not being allowed into Gaza from Egypt. I am not sure if these are the same people.

Sharansky in 2005, as per my post just previous:

".... In my view, the disengagement plan is a tragic mistake that will exacerbate the conflict with the Palestinians, increase terrorism, and dim the prospects of forging a genuine peace."

Five years later, not only do we have an oppressive, repressive, ruthless and brutal terrorist regime controlling the Gaza strip, but Iran is there... with their delegations, their advisors and their sophisticated weaponry, all out in the open.

So, why is it that so few listened to Sharansky? And to Jabotinsky before him? Why did no one listen as, night after night, Sean Hannity ticked off the radical associations in the life of Buraq Hussein Obama?

That's my new question -- not how did these fighters and prophets know and keep going, but what prevents people from listening to them or believing them?

".... In my view, the disengagement plan is a tragic mistake that will exacerbate the conflict with the Palestinians, increase terrorism, and dim the prospects of forging a genuine peace. Yet what turns this tragic mistake into a missed opportunity of historic proportions is the fact that as a result of changes in the Palestinian leadership and the firm conviction of the leader of the free world that democracy is essential to stability and peace—a conviction that is guiding America's actions in other places around the world—an unprecedented window of opportunity has opened.

Recent events across the globe, whether in former Soviet republics like Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan, or in Arab states like Lebanon and Egypt, prove again and again the ability of democratic forces to induce dramatic change. How absurd that Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East, still refuses to believe in the power of freedom to transform our world."

If it was absurd five years ago that Israel refused "to believe in the power of freedom to transform our world," how much more absurd is it that the United States, having opened that "unprecedented window of opportunity," has now slammed it shut?

Obama talks about transformation, but it is not a transformation brought through freedom and democracy. In his worldview, the totalitarian regimes of Castro and Chavez are more appealing for their redistribution of wealth than they are abhorrent for their tyrannical oppression.

Obama's byword is "justice." Economic justice, environmental justice, racial justice, the list goes on and on. In his much-adored "race speech" in Philadelphia, Candidate Obama exhorted the duly-hyphenated African-American community to "insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life."

We should have thought, we could have known, we didn't ask. What is a "full measure"?

We should have thought, we could have known, we didn't ask... what sort of CHANGE he had in mind.

In retrospect, we should have been filled with fear and loathing when he explained:

"It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start."

We should have thought, we could have known, but no one asked what, if anything, would constitute "enough." No one asked in what direction this path of change would take us, or where it might end.

I guess "Justice" sounded so good, so shiny and new, that no one remembered to ask about freedom and democracy. We were so anxious to throw out the leader of the free world, that we cast aside his firm convictions as well.

In asking if fighting for smaller government is racist as charged, Daniel Greenfield pegs the purveyors:

"This plantation politics that promises protection in return for fealty is not only degrading and undemocratic, it is dangerous to everyone involved."

It never occurred to me before I read this, but I bet you could juxtapose many comments of actual slave-owners with those of today's Democrats. Both perspectives base their judgments on skin color, both deal not with individuals but with the construct of a group (based on skin color), and both get exactly what they want (and no more) from the people they claim to "protect."

You could also call it "protection politics" -- It's less of a kick in the gut, but the similarity of tactics is unmistakable.